cx-quality-attestationlisted

# Attesting a QA period Somebody senior is being asked to confirm that quality was assured for a period, and their name goes on it. The purpose of an attestation is to make explicit what is actually being claimed — because the implied claim ("quality was good") is almost never what the evidence supports, and the person signing usually has not been told the difference. **The attestation's value is in its limitations section.** An attestation with no limitations is not a stronger attestation; it is a less careful one, and it exposes the signer. ## State the claim precisely Write what is being attested to, in one paragraph, and be pedantic about the verb. Defensible claims look like: > "The QA programme operated as designed during the period: coverage rules were applied, > N evaluations were completed against scorecard version V, M were reviewed by a human, > and the results are as stated." That is a claim about **process operation**. It is verifiable, and it is what a QA function can actually attest to. What a QA function cannot honestly attest to: - **That quality was good.** That is an interpretation of a score against a standard, and it needs the score to be a valid measure of quality. - **That no poor outcomes occurred.** Sampled assurance cannot support a negative across the population. - **That every conversation was compliant.** Unless there was a census, which there was not. If the person asking wants one of those, say which one is unavailable and what wo